news.independent.co.uk wrote:
The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis
By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 03 April 2007
A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.
Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.
...
I was wondering how this was going to be our fault.
I'm not sure how simple suspicion that we wanted 2 people who weren't there add up to be grounds to abduct 15 soldiers from a different country entirely.
Does anyone actually doubt that Iran is meddling in Iraq?
Won't the whole hostage crisis just bolster more support against Iran?
Fash wrote:
Does anyone actually doubt that Iran is meddling in Iraq?
I have no doubt that Iran is in Iraq, but I wouldn't be shocked to hear that they are there with the Iraqi government's approval.
Fash wrote:
Won't the whole hostage crisis just bolster more support against Iran?
I actually see it bolstering support FOR Iran unfortunately. A disputed border between two countries is one thing, throw it in a body of water, and keeping track of who "officially" has what will just make it easier to cross into the wrong territory. I don't really believe that this happened, but I think there is enough doubt being aired in the media (in the US at least) that almost goes so far as to blame the UK for actually having the troops in the wrong place. They do focus on saying they were in Iraqi waters as well, but the fact that they report how both are possible makes the Iranian position seem more plausible.
I don't think the liberal media is this stupid but they sometime post in huge headlines that the British soldiers confessed to being in Iran's territorial waters. It's shameful. Fucked up reporters trying to make a name for themselves.
I'd hope that even the pussiest of liberals understands that you aren't going to get an honest statement out of someone held as a prisoner, especially in a head-lopping-off country. These lame attempts may fool idiots in the Middle East, but please get a grip on yourselves.
This won't help Iran and there's now a second U.S. carrier group in the gulf now. It's just a matter of time. Britain being willing to discuss ways to resolve territorial water issues is merely a genuine attempt to get the soldiers back. They could give a shit about what Iran wants.
It's still 50/50 on whether the U.S. or Israel takes out Iran's Nuclear site. Either way, it will be American bunker busters that get the job done.
For the record, I'm for withdrawing our troops and then maintain regular air attacks throughout the Middle East as needed with all out assaults on any position with a downed pilot as needed. We're getting better and better with drone warfare so it shouldn't happen often.
All this talk about a deadline to withdraw troops is only going to force an escalation. Bush screwed up and I'm looking forward to the end of his presidency but there's no way we leave Iraq with a "healthy" Iran sitting beside them...not because of democracy or caring who kills who of the factions scrapping it out there:
1. We can't let any of those countries unite. We didn't let Iraq steamroll Kuwait and we're not going to let Iran annex Iraq. The Middle East needs to continue to be a train wreck it is.
2. Oil! If we didn't need it, we'd be more inclined to flatten the place. I still think that's our plan if we ever get serious about alternative fuel...so that's not an option for another 20-30 years.
3. The Jews can take care of themselves but might need to go nuclear if we don't help.
They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
Just for the sake of clarification, what's the difference between us capturing and holding 5 people, and them holding 15 people? Why are they called hostages when Iran does it?
That sounds a bit biased to me.
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."- Barack Obama
I guess it's the whole "don't parade prisoners onto TV and have them read coerced confessions" thing. I guess when you do that they are "hostages." Keeping them in relative obscurity makes them prisoners.
<shrug> Not a huge difference in the end of things, I guess.
Just for the sake of clarification, what's the difference between us capturing and holding 5 people, and them holding 15 people? Why are they called hostages when Iran does it?
Maybe because Iran didn't label them as enemy combatants? After all once you're labeled subjectively as one you are no longer a person with rights.
I personally would love to see actual intelligence of Iran's role in Iraq, I feel like I'm in fucking dark there.
Continuation of British rhetoric toning down from Blair's aggressive statement a few days ago (which didn't rule out escalating to military action), that eventually leads to a release of the hostages.
Let it drift.
There is not enough disk space available to delete this file, please delete some files to free up disk space.
Sylvus wrote:Just for the sake of clarification, what's the difference between us capturing and holding 5 people, and them holding 15 people? Why are they called hostages when Iran does it?
In this case the word hostage is being misused by the media. A hostage is generally someone who is being held by someone else in order to have demands met or to fulfill a purpose. The Iranians are being detained because they were caught probably up to no good in Iraq. Both parties are prisoners more than hostages. Although I suppose you could argue that the brits are being held under the demand that the "coalition" leave Iraq.
I'm always unsure about the sanity of Iranian officials when they pull unbelievably stupid shit like this. They seem more concerned about winning little symbolic victories like parading them around on TV and using them to generate more dodgy propaganda then they are about getting their asses bombed. Not a single person on the planet buys these letters supposedly written by that woman but they will probably keep firing them off. It's really bizarre behavior.
I was wondering how this was going to be our fault.
Yeah I'm sure taking those Iranians 2 months ago and constantly spewing shit threatening Iran for A, B or C had nothing to do with Iran inciting this international incident.
Moron.
This incident should shut America and British rhetoric up for a while, so win win for everyone really.
Maybe not American, I don't there's anything that could stop that juggernaut of stupidity right now.
As for the UK, it's been shown to be impotent, it's obvious, even from the last few days, quite how little the UK can actually do anymore to Iran as things stand in Iraq etc.
Good post though. In before Kyoukan as well, I'm impressed.
They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
Just for the sake of clarification, what's the difference between us capturing and holding 5 people, and them holding 15 people? Why are they called hostages when Iran does it?
They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.
Just for the sake of clarification, what's the difference between us capturing and holding 5 people, and them holding 15 people? Why are they called hostages when Iran does it?
